De-Romancing the Rose: Bael, Politics, Kinslaying, and Spite

[Sly Wren]

Great analysis.

Are you making the claim that Aerys paralleled Bael on purpose or this was a literary device tying the two together? The story of Bael isn't even known by the Starks, so I doubt Aerys would be aware of it. You do seem to be implying that most people are aware of the story, or at least all the Starks were at Harrenhal. This maybe the case but I don't understand why the story died in the telling to the Starks after Robert's Rebellion. It would have been even further justification for the Starks to hate the Targaryens. It seems to me the story was never told by the Starks due to the slight to their house and suggestion they were bested.

1. 

2. If I implied that people knew the story well, I apologize. I can see that as possible. Black Crow and others above have postulated that Varys or others might have  known the story.

But I was thinking more that we may not know how the Starks knew it was an insult. But that they did. Could have been everyone knew about the roses. Could have been something else. IE: like Tywin knew full well that Jaime's investiture in the Kingsguard was a personal insult and stealing of his son.

But one way or another--the Starks knew that crown was an insult.

3. And I agree there's a good chance the Starks never told the story. Given how Ygritte's tale really ends, could see why that might not get told often.

I've seen people tie the Bael story to many other story arcs in the series, not just this one. But from what I've seen postulated the characters of Bael and the "maid" are not always the same even throughout the arc.

I'm a bit slow today--are you saying that the characters who echo Bael and the maid shift around as bit in their individual echoes? If so, I agree. If that's not what you mean, any chance you'd elaborate a bit to help me get this through my skull?

I have thought it odd that Aerys from what we can gather never sent anyone looking for Rhaegar until late into the war. Which suggests he was fine with what Rhaegar did. He ruthlessly defended his son which caused Roberts Rebellion. This is why I find the world book's "interpretation" that the father and son were at each others throats to be falsehood (or great exaggeration).

Very possible that Rhaegar and Aerys were working willingly together. 

I am reluctant to fully sign off on that given what we know of Rhaegar's character. And the few times we have Jaime echo Rhaegar--Jaime knows he has to break from his family. Chooses his oath re: Sansa over his family. And sends Brienne and all her Arthur Dayne like integrity after Sansa, Lyanna's echo.

I'm wondering more and more if Arthur and Rhaegar got Lyanna away from Aerys. Realized they had to--for decency and honor. Not too different from how Rhaegar seems to know he must get his father out of power.

[Sly Wren]

 

I think I understand your point that he's not famous because he sang, but for what he sang about. I have a slightly different take on it. He's not famous because he's a bard, he's famous because he's a KBtW who was also a bard. For a similar idea, recall Robert telling Ned about becoming the "Sellsword King." Robert seems to think that the singers would have enjoyed that. Sellswords aren't usually famous, but kings who are sellswords would get remembered for being both. Such is the case with Bael the Bard, I believe.

Certainly the content of his songs helped perpetuate his own legend among the free folk in some cases -- Eff the Starks amiright? -- I think the fact that he became KBtW meant that at least some of his songs might be popular anyway. Ygritte makes it seem like lots of his songs were, at least in part, about bedding maidens. Is that such a great deed? I guess it depends on the maiden. Har.

Har indeed.

Yeah--I buy that. And the fact that he was a bard put him in the position to write up his exploits (potentially with embellishments) and do his own PR concerts.

I think we're wading into talk of Bael's motive again. I agree that it's something we should be thinking about. But, there are more angles to the story. Also, it seems to me like you're focusing on the in universe interpretation of the discussion, which is completely valid. But we also need to consider what the readers are supposed to take away from it.

Once again, I think you're focusing solely on Bael's motive. Especially his motive heading into Winterfell. As I think we both suspect, the method of executing his revenge on the lord changed at some point after he arrived. Unless he knew about the maid beforehand, but we don't hear anything about that. So I don't see why it can't be a bit of both, revenge and romance. He wanted revenge, but he spent a year bedding the girl. At least from her perspective, I'd say it was a romance. Otherwise I doubt she stays in the crypts with him for a year, and then jumps from a tower after his head is brought back to the castle all those years later.

1. On the motive--we may end up having to agree to disagree on how much each aspect matters. Though it does seem like we agree motive matters somewhat.

But my focus on it goes back to the context of the story and in the other novels. IE: The fact that we hear about Bael-ish and Mance Rayder before we hear about Bael, the great raider. And we keep hearing about those two. And see other examples of the "stick it to an enemy via a child" in later novels. Like Cersei with the Blue Bard in Feast. Martin keeps coming back to that part of the tale. . . 

2. Romance is possible, if not given. And I don't rule out romance for Lyanna. But with both Sansa and Arya, they aren't fond of their "stealers," thought Sansa is initially charmed. And Sansa is in the hands of Baelish. Whom she does not seem to be "charmed" by. She thinks of her savior--the Hound. Not her stealer. . . So, what if Rhaegar or another was her savior?

I'm not very concerned with what GRRM gives us first, as he often reveals more important things later. Look at the blue roses in Ned's chapters. Beyond a doubt, the most important info about them comes in his last chapter.

Agreed--my point in bringing up the fact that we get Mance and Baelish first is that Martin keeps coming back to them and their motives and actions re: the stolen Stark. Then reiterates that Bael-ish like motive with Cersei's move against Marg. Martin keeps that context going. The one he started before introducing us to Bael.

So, seems like Bael is supposed to fit into that context. 

I completely agree that when the story gives us these parallels, that it makes sense to look for missing data from one in the other. However, I'd be careful when extrapolating backwards like this for a couple of reasons. GRRM isn't always a straight shooter with these things. It seems to me he's about just as likely to invert the idea somehow from iteration to the other. Also, because the stories are incomplete we might be extrapolating onto the wrong data points. Obviously, by all means speculate away. But I'd be wary about drawing any firm conclusions this way. That is, draw conclusions if you'd like, but also prepare to be open minded if something that fits better comes along.

Agreed.

Well, Rhaegar supposedly arranged the HH tourney so that he could meet with as many great lords as possible to discuss what to do about his father. Rickard Stark didn't show up. Snub. (Sure, neither did Tywin, but there is reason to think that Rhaegar might have believed he had his support anyway. And Tywin wanted nothing to do with that tourney because of Aerys and his investiture of Jaime into the KG.) It's also possible that Rhaegar may have gotten wind of the southron ambitions alliance. That would have left him without many potential allies outside of Dorne. Certainly Lyanna was one of the keys to sealing that alliance. (In the past I've posited some different scenarios about how it would have made sense for Rhaegar to marry Lyanna and have a child with her, in order to destabilize this alliance. That might be beyond the scope of this thread though. And just mentioning the idea might be enough for you to understand where it could lead.) One other previously mentioned idea comes to mind, as well. That the crowning was (partially?) in retaliation for the Stark dishonoring Ashara at HH. Arthur was his BFF, after all.

Possible. . . though does Rhaegar strike you as one to go after a grown Stark man via a child-woman of surpassing loveliness?

And on top of all of that, we have to consider the idea that the Bael story/symbolism wasn't necessarily meant to be applied during the crowning, but later on and partially as a result of it. Again, it would be the same idea as the procreation metaphor. Rhaegar didn't impregnate Lyanna at HH, nor was he announcing his intention to do so. It was GRRM's way of telling us that he did, later on. So, Rhaegar didn't mean to insult the Starks, or announce that he was going to kidnap Lyanna. It was GRRM's way of telling us that he did, later on.

Completely agree that the symbolism is more for the reader. But the Starks do react to that crown. Something's up.

[Sly Wren]

Of course, there are still other possibilities. The Lord of Winterfell may have been powerful enough to put an end to all rumours about Bael in the North by force. Or he may have made his daughter swear that she would never tell anyone who the father of her child was – including the child. The point is that lacking more data, we cannot take her silence as proof that she did not love Bael. In fact, looking at the main story, we can see a very similar situation: Ned never tells Jon who his mother was, but that does not mean that Ned didn’t love the mother. We all seem to be certain that he loved her very much, yet, he never talks about her to his bastard son. This may be another parallel worth considering.

Agree on the bolded--as I said, no way to pin it down. Cannot rule it out. Nor rule love in. Without more data, it's a very interesting gap. But a gap.

A disclaimer whether the Stark girl truly loved Bael… That is by no means the only “love aspect” of the story. The story is a myth, and in a myth it does not matter whether it was true love or lust, seduction or force. It was a relationship between a man and a woman, and the result was the birth of a child. We don’t need to know more. A myth focuses on the universal, on the eternal, on how the world works. They may be enemies, their intent may be this or that, but the union of a man and a woman recreates the mystery of life, in this case life emerging from the crypt, conquering death. Something eternally, universally human turns enemies into blood relations. Those who face each other in battle are kinsmen – brothers or father and son, it doesn’t really matter. The unsuspecting kinslaying that angers the gods is a universal warning: we are all part of a large family, slaying a fellow human is more often kinslaying than we would think.

1. I completely agree the story is a myth and is a story (among other things) of how the Starks and wildlings are kin. 

2. But I do think HOW that kinship gets started is part of the myth. Like myths of thoughtless arrogance (Icarus) or not respecting family (Cain and Abel), etc.--this kinship gets established out of spite. And the result is kinslaying disaster. That really seems to be part of the kinship lesson, too.

Bael's self-indulgent stealing of the maid and leaving a child, his lack of respect, his lack of foresight--(did he really think there was no chance a Stark child might end up an enemy?)--those actions seems like part of the myth and its lesson, too. 

The idea that the Bael story is primarily about political manipulation takes away a lot from its mythical qualities. To me, it is a myth of a universal message, about rebirth and blood ties, the futility of war. Of course, your interpretation about the political manipulation angle is totally valid. But I think that the game of thrones is overridden by the game of life in this story, too. Was Bael planning a cruel joke at the expense of his enemy? Did he think he could play with the lives of others – including a young girl who had never hurt him and a not yet born child? His own child? Don’t you think that his brilliant plan backfired? It took thirty years, but it backfired when Bael found himself face to face in battle with a Lord Stark he could not kill – his own son.

Well said. The game of life does over-ride the politics. And, given how things are going in the novels so far, as well as how they went in Robert's Rebellion--seems like that lesson is coming back repeatedly.

How did he even know that Lord Stark was his son? It implies that Bael had never fully left behind his “family” in Winterfell, that he kept an eye on his son secretly, from a distance, otherwise he would not have known that his son had grown to be the Lord of Winterfell. Was he only afraid of the anger of the gods or did he really want his son to live? Perhaps he hoped to make peace with his son, but the son did not recognize the father who had left him. As a result, his son became the kinslayer who angered the gods. Do you think Bael would have been proud if he had known the consequences of his actions in advance?

An excellent question. And your solution is possible. We also have Free Folk recognize Jon as looking like a Stark. Was Bael's son equally dominated by his mother's genes?

Ygritte's tale doesn't give us much, but does make it clear Bael won't kill the son. And I agree on the final bolded--it has all the qualities of a warning against arrogance, even against an enemy. How it will come back to haunt you.

Bael wanted to punish Lord Stark, who had only abused him verbally, and in the process he literally created another Lord Stark, one who was stronger than he (Bael) was, the Lord Stark who, in the end, defeated and killed him. The Starks survived and grew stronger and continued to fight Bael’s people. Such a brilliant political manipulator, that Bael. This is, I think, what the story says about the political manipulation angle. It is not the game of the ultimate winners. Bringing a child into this world, bringing him / her up is the work of Life, and Life can come back even from the crypts. In the main story, the Starks protect the children, including the children of their enemies. They protect life, just as once Lord Brandon Stark did when he found his lost daughter and his grandchild.

This is marvelous. Would add to the "moral" that the attempt to spite an enemy comes back on the one who perpetrated it. As Ygritte says--Bael ends the Tale with finding the babe. With his triumph. But Ygritte knows the real ending--the cost and horror to Bael and his child and the child's mother. The Starks do survive, as you said. But they, too, paid for Bael's actions.

[Sly Wren]

Correct me if I’m wrong on the points below:

1. You seem to have established that the “plotter” who uses his enemy’s child for manipulation purposes is King Aerys. (Fair enough.)

2. You also seem to be saying that Bael, rather than a bard and a future king, is primarily a king and a plotter / political manipulator in the original Bael story.

3. We seem to agree that Lyanna plays the part of the Stark maiden in her version of the Bael story.

4. We seem to agree that Lyanna gave birth to a child: Jon Snow.

If I interpret you correctly on the above four points, then I think all these arguments together plus your (rhetorical?) question (whether Rhaegar was a plotter) point in one specific direction: that in Lyanna’s version of the Bael story, Bael’s role is played by King Aerys. From this, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that on the evidence of this interpretation of Bael’s story, Aerys must be Jon Snow’s father. I don’t agree with this, but I don’t agree with point 2 above either. However, if I agreed with all four points above, I would have to conclude that Jon Snow’s parents are Lyanna and Aerys because in the Bael story, Bael is undoubtedly the father of the Stark girl’s child.

Do you agree with this conclusion? 

Close--but in my OP, I was trying to point out that in the current iterations of Bael--Baelish, Mance, Cersei, etc.--the "Bael" figure is the plotter who uses the Stark maid against his/her family. But NOT the father of the child.

Nor are the singers or other figures directly used by the Bael/plotter figure--Marillion, Dontos, Blue Bard, etc.

If that holds (a shaky prospect, I know--but it's at least roughly held over five books), that would potentially mean that Aerys (and perhaps others) were behind the taking of Lyanna. But someone else is the father of her child.

1. Perhaps the writer didn't consider it necessary at that point to talk about blackened blue rose petals. Writers don't always spell out everything for the readers. Lyanna is symbolized by blue roses. Blackened blue rose petals symbolize Lyanna's death. (Other possible meanings: blue roses may be associated with Lyanna's child, and then the black has a different meaning. It may even mean - though it is not may favourite interpretation - that Lyanna became a Targaryen and paid for it with her life.) The symbolism just doesn't work with any other roses.

2.   Now I have an image in my head of GRRM writing about the blackened rose petals, giggling to himself: "Let me see how many readers will guess these roses were originally yellow! Heh, heh." He also giggled when he wrote about the blue flower in the ice in Dany's dream knowing how few readers would guess that the flower was a forget-me-not.

The image of Martin giggling puts the video of him on the trampoline own my head. Giggling on a trampoline with roses. Not good.

On the roses per se--I agree they could be blue. I can't throw down on them one way or another. But I agree that the symbolism would work better if whoever was caring for her was able to get her blue roses.

3. Any reason why her statue wouldn't be crowned with blue roses then? My question is not what her reason was to love roses. It is that winter roses are either a symbol of insult for the Starks or not. If they are, then they won't have them in Winterfell. If they are not, then the blue roses from Rhaegar or anyone didn't represent any specific political message.  

Well--the crown of roses seems different from the roses per se, no? Bringing her roses is one thing. Re-doing the crown that Ned sees as so horrifying seems different. 

[bemused]

Dang! I just found this thread and I'm miffed I didn't find it sooner.(My compliments to Sly Wren.)

I find it pretty amazing that so many of these stories reflect elements of the others. It's like a kaleidoscope - every time you turn it, the mirrors show you something different - yet you know each "picture" is really just another way of looking at the same particles trapped within. Some shards can remain obscured or buried completely for multiple turns and then suddenly shift into view , combining with others in endlessly fascinating ways.

I've just skimmed the thread, so far, so forgive me if some of these points have already been made..
On on a grand scale, the story Ygritte tells also can be related to what is going on at the end of Dance..

Looking at Ygritte's story - Bael and the daughter form a union, producing a son, who (for whatever reason) doesn't know his father's identity. Ideally, this son could have bridged a divide between the people of both parents, forming a new social / political reality, preventing a lot of future bloodshed.

Regardless of whether Bael's initial motivation was spite, he had a year in hiding to reflect on the possibilities that came with the pregnancy. ..Regardless of whether there was love or attraction between Bael and the daughter before the "abduction", there was apparently love on her part, by the time he left, and I see no reason why there should not have been love on his part. That he stayed with her throughtout her pregnancy, only leaving after he would have seen and held his son, definitely suggests caring to my mind.

I think Bael's identity as a bard is very important. Bards, singers, skalds , storytellers .. are all important to keeping history alive, but we see, even in the case of our revered Old Nan, that she often changes her stories slightly here and there. ..Written lore or history can also be coloured or altered by the writer, long after the events .. but a poem, and especially a song, is much more likely to survive unaltered. ...  The melody stays with us , and even if we forget the odd line, we can turn to a friend and ask "How does that bit go, again?"

Ygritte's "darker end" may or may not only be told in story, but in another song. ..There are suspiciously specific details in Ygritte's version of those events, e.g., that the end story took place thirty years later, though she's foggy on when the whole story took place, just.. "a long time back". She's specific about Bael's son winding up flayed and worn as a cloak.. undoubtedly the work of Boltons, though she doesn't name them. Here's the quote..

 

 

“The song ends when they find the babe, but there is a darker end to the story. Thirty 
years later, when Bael was King-beyond-the-Wall and led the free folk south, it was young Lord Stark who met him at the Frozen Ford... and killed him, for Bael would not harm his own son when they met sword to sword.” 
“So the son slew the father instead,” said Jon. 
“Aye,” she said, “but the gods hate kinslayers, even when they kill unknowing. When Lord Stark returned from the battle and his mother saw Bael’s head upon his spear, she threw herself from a tower in her grief. Her son did not long outlive her. One o’ his lords peeled the skin off him and wore him for a cloak.” 
“Your Bael was a liar,” he told her, certain now. 
“No,” Ygritte said, “but a bard’s truth is different than yours or mine. Anyway, you asked for the story, so I told it.”

I suspect GRRM is playing with the qualities of spoken story vs. song - and it might matter a lot that Ygritte is only telling the story. It's not that she's too shy, she's not reluctant to sing later , when she sings "The Last of the Giants.".. he also makes pointed reference to POV, in her exchanges with Jon and Stonesnake..

“I suppose it’s all in where you’re standing.” 
“Aye,” Ygritte agreed. “It always is.”  ...

... Stonesnake gave a snort. “A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean.” 
“That’s all in where you’re standing too,” 

It can also be deceptive when she says ".. a bard's truth is different from yours and mine". At first, this might not sound too flattering to the bard. But on consideration, sure, the bard might add some praise or denigration .. make the hero of the story more handsome (irresistible to women?), the villain uglier, etc.,etc.. but I'd say the bard is probably right in the details of events, though the listener might see some different truths in regard to motivation (depending on where they stand), or in relating the song to the reality they know.

If the Boltons have been continuing to make cloaks of the skins of their enemies since they supposedly gave it up (1000 yrs. back?) , they've been doing it in secret... This is something that wouldn't surprise me, but Ygritte could hardly have known about it (nor could Bael, if his story took place after the Conquest).

At the same time ,from where Ygritte is standing, Kings other than Kings-Beyond-the-Wall are not recognised (or likely kept track of). The Stark in Winterfell, since well before any living wildling can remember, is a Lord.. and "skipped down the kingsroad" is probably a euphemism for what raiders do, or simply a way to shorten the story.. The kingsroad,too, has existed much longer than living memory. 

There may be a faint allusion to this in ADWD. When Ty and Dannel rescue Alys Karstark... They were chasing down some wildlings who scampered off down the kingsroad. (To do what?) ..Scampered..skipped..pretty similar.

Because she's telling a story, not singing Bael's song, Ygritte , like Old Nan, could be adding her own colour, inserting her own reality, while sticking faithfully to Bael's account of the main events. .. I rather suspect there could be another song, not just a story, that tells the tale of Bael's child... (Perhaps his sad end coincides with taking of WF by one of the Royce Boltons?)

For all we know, in Bael's song there might be no mention of the kingsroad and "Brandon the Daughterless" may well have been a King, whether or not Bael or Ygritte would call him one.

During ADWD, as well as defending the Wall, Jon(conceived during a supposed abduction) is trying to create unity, or at least compatibility between the north and the wildlings, in the hope of a new reality growing out of his efforts (itself,a birth, of sorts) - preventing loss of life in the future..picking up the banner that Bael's son dropped. And the Boltons are once again wreaking havoc, bent on exterminating Starks. (And for Roose, perhaps on becoming king of the north.)

This next is sort of a side issue, but one I've thought about a lot in connection with other topics: If Bael's story is true, how did they survive for a year ? ... When Bran & co are hiding from Theon in the crypts, they're getting pretty hungry by the end, but it's too dangerous for Osha to try to sneak to the kitchens. This would have been equally true for Bael. It's obvious to me that Bael must have had a way to get out and hunt, or forage. This connects to the idea of a secret passage under WF.. but if one exists, why has it not been rediscovered in perhaps hundreds of years? I think we've probably been shown a model for it in the Black Gate - but instead of requiring a sworn brother of the NW to find it and open it, it would require a Stark. This would imply that the couple were equally interested in staying hidden and lends credence to grief displayed by the daughter at Bael's death.

If she didn't love him, she could have returned any time he was out foraging. If he didn't love her, he could have gone out to forage and just kept going. Since Mance was inspired by Bael, I think it's very probable that Bael, too, made regular forays south of the wall to gather information .. on his lover and their son, among other things. Watching from a distance, as Julia H. suggests.

Turning back to Lyanna and Rhaegar, a couple of things stand out to me about the blue roses.

First, in Ned's memory, Lyanna was .. in a room that smelled of blood and roses ... and he remembers ... the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. ... It takes a while for rose petals to darken to that degree. I think those were most likely the petals from her crown at the tournament, now dry, saved by Lyanna as a memento. And of course, dried rose petals maintain their scent (as in pot pouri). That she was clutching them as she died, suggests there was love on her part.. If he did whisper a woman's name as he died, that suggests (to me) that it was her name and there was therefore love on his part. I'll be very surprised if he did not, or if it turns out to be any other name.

As to whether the statue actually wore a crown of roses, we shouldn't forget that while Ned's dream features the normal sort of distortion of known elements that we all can have in dreams, sometimes (perhaps accentuated by dreamwine? IDK), Theon's dream of the feast of the dead was for the most part, a true dream and probably takes a prophetic turn when Robb and Greywind appear. As such, it may be being influenced by Bloodraven. Theon doesn't see Lyanna's statue, but dead Lyanna. I doubt the events at Harrenhall could have been up for discussion around WF, but other things, such as the fact that .. "she loved the scent of winter roses", may have been common knowledge. And if Ned did take flowers to the crypts for her when he could (as he tells Robert), I think we can accurately guess what kind of flowers those were. This would surely have been observed on occasion...  Theon could know these things, and still have no knowledge of her crown.

I do think Lyanna's abduction was most likely at Aerys' command, but am   undecided whether Rhaegar was given the command, or whether he heard about it and took it sideways, to protect Lyanna... And as well as sharing elements of other in-story scenarios , there are strong associations for us, here,  with Tristan / Isolde, Lancelot / Guinevere , Deirdre / Naisi , etc. etc., that are not shared with the other examples. The differences as well as the similarities can be important. (As I think the OP recognised.)

[Sly Wren]

Dang! I just found this thread and I'm miffed I didn't find it sooner.(My compliments to Sly Wren.)

Looking at Ygritte's story - Bael and the daughter form a union, producing a son, who (for whatever reason) doesn't know his father's identity. Ideally, this son could have bridged a divide between the people of both parents, forming a new social / political reality, preventing a lot of future bloodshed.

Regardless of whether Bael's initial motivation was spite, he had a year in hiding to reflect on the possibilities that came with the pregnancy. ..Regardless of whether there was love or attraction between Bael and the daughter before the "abduction", there was apparently love on her part, by the time he left, and I see no reason why there should not have been love on his part. That he stayed with her throughtout her pregnancy, only leaving after he would have seen and held his son, definitely suggests caring to my mind.

Maybe--I can't discount it entirely. The problem is--all we have is what Ygritte gave us. And the context of the novels--we get Bael-ish and Mance BEFORE Bael. And we have Sansa and Arya--the stolen Stark maidens, both stolen via trickery and deceit--neither of whom are enamored of their capturers. If anything, Sansa starts out starry-eyed, and ends up completely disillusioned. So. . . it's hard to use the Bael Tale or the novels as an argument that we are supposed to "imagine" love when the Tale disclaims it. And the echoes of the tale deny it. . . 

I suspect GRRM is playing with the qualities of spoken story vs. song - and it might matter a lot that Ygritte is only telling the story. It's not that she's too shy, she's not reluctant to sing later , when she sings "The Last of the Giants.".. he also makes pointed reference to POV, in her exchanges with Jon and Stonesnake..

“I suppose it’s all in where you’re standing.” 
“Aye,” Ygritte agreed. “It always is.”  ...

... Stonesnake gave a snort. “A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean.” 
“That’s all in where you’re standing too,” 

It can also be deceptive when she says ".. a bard's truth is different from yours and mine". At first, this might not sound too flattering to the bard. But on consideration, sure, the bard might add some praise or denigration .. make the hero of the story more handsome (irresistible to women?), the villain uglier, etc.,etc.. but I'd say the bard is probably right in the details of events, though the listener might see some different truths in regard to motivation (depending on where they stand), or in relating the song to the reality they know.

An excellent point! We are getting the song second-hand. And through Ygritte's comparative lens--she notes that since Bael's women always love him in the songs, we should probably take the love with a grain of salt.

So, we are getting a bard's descendant's truth, extrapolated from a bard's truth.

Huh--does that still count?

But it also fits with the rest of the novels--Bael-ish is an echo of the original tale. And, like Ygritte's telling, undermines the love angle. Same with Mance. And Cersei. So--are we supposed to ignore all of that and assert love with Lyanna and Rhaegar????

During ADWD, as well as defending the Wall, Jon(conceived during a supposed abduction) is trying to create unity, or at least compatibility between the north and the wildlings, in the hope of a new reality growing out of his efforts (itself,a birth, of sorts) - preventing loss of life in the future..picking up the banner that Bael's son dropped. And the Boltons are once again wreaking havoc, bent on exterminating Starks. (And for Roose, perhaps on becoming king of the north.)

Nice!! Jon is trying NOT to repeat the animosity warned against in the tale. Sees the wildlings as, if not kin, his fellows. "The realms of men." 

This next is sort of a side issue, but one I've thought about a lot in connection with other topics: If Bael's story is true, how did they survive for a year ? ... When Bran & co are hiding from Theon in the crypts, they're getting pretty hungry by the end, but it's too dangerous for Osha to try to sneak to the kitchens. This would have been equally true for Bael. It's obvious to me that Bael must have had a way to get out and hunt, or forage. This connects to the idea of a secret passage under WF.. but if one exists, why has it not been rediscovered in perhaps hundreds of years? I think we've probably been shown a model for it in the Black Gate - but instead of requiring a sworn brother of the NW to find it and open it, it would require a Stark. This would imply that the couple were equally interested in staying hidden and lends credence to grief displayed by the daughter at Bael's death.

If she didn't love him, she could have returned any time he was out foraging. If he didn't love her, he could have gone out to forage and just kept going. Since Mance was inspired by Bael, I think it's very probable that Bael, too, made regular forays south of the wall to gather information .. on his lover and their son, among other things. Watching from a distance, as Julia H. suggests.

All fair--but again: we end up having to add stuff that the text doesn't give us. And which gets undermined by some of the echoes: stolen Sansa and Arya's reactions to their initial stealing. And Sansa is now "willingly" in hiding with Bael-ish--because he framed her for regicide.

Ygritte does not give us the details. Only a disclaimer re: love. But Martin gives us details in Sansa and Arya. And even via Margaery. Seems like he might be giving them for a reason--and putting that disclaimer on Ygritte's tale for a reason, too.

Turning back to Lyanna and Rhaegar, a couple of things stand out to me about the blue roses.

First, in Ned's memory, Lyanna was .. in a room that smelled of blood and roses ... and he remembers ... the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. ... It takes a while for rose petals to darken to that degree. I think those were most likely the petals from her crown at the tournament, now dry, saved by Lyanna as a memento. And of course, dried rose petals maintain their scent (as in pot pouri). That she was clutching them as she died, suggests there was love on her part.. If he did whisper a woman's name as he died, that suggests (to me) that it was her name and there was therefore love on his part. I'll be very surprised if he did not, or if it turns out to be any other name.

Possible. Though impossible to pin down. I do find it hard to imagine that dried rose petals, faded to the pale color that they generally do in drying (and blue winter roses are supposedly already light blue) would, after at least a year, survive being clutched as anything other than minuscule beige crumbs. . . But perhaps Martin doesn't spend much time drying roses. . . 

As to whether the statue actually wore a crown of roses, we shouldn't forget that while Ned's dream features the normal sort of distortion of known elements that we all can have in dreams, sometimes (perhaps accentuated by dreamwine? IDK), Theon's dream of the feast of the dead was for the most part, a true dream and probably takes a prophetic turn when Robb and Greywind appear. As such, it may be being influenced by Bloodraven. Theon doesn't see Lyanna's statue, but dead Lyanna. I doubt the events at Harrenhall could have been up for discussion around WF, but other things, such as the fact that .. "she loved the scent of winter roses", may have been common knowledge. And if Ned did take flowers to the crypts for her when he could (as he tells Robert), I think we can accurately guess what kind of flowers those were. This would surely have been observed on occasion...  Theon could know these things, and still have no knowledge of her crown.

Agreed.

I do think Lyanna's abduction was most likely at Aerys' command, but am   undecided whether Rhaegar was given the command, or whether he heard about it and took it sideways, to protect Lyanna... And as well as sharing elements of other in-story scenarios , there are strong associations for us, here,  with Tristan / Isolde, Lancelot / Guinevere , Deirdre / Naisi , etc. etc., that are not shared with the other examples. The differences as well as the similarities can be important. (As I think the OP recognised.)

Very possible. I'll be putting up my next argument re: what I think are potential echoes as to what Rhaegar's role was soon--basically, I think he and Arthur got Lyanna away from Aerys. And the idea that Lyanna could fall for her savior/protector/helper--well, we've already seen that in Sansa. 

[Sly Wren]

One other thing:

@WhitewolfStark analyzed Martin's story "Bitterblooms" here and continued here. Which has bearing on the topic at hand re: the story has blue roses as a key motif.

The direct quote from the story:

"From the high bank where she paused, she could see the remains of two bridges that had once spanned the narrow channel, but both of them had fallen long ago. The river was frozen over, however, so she had no trouble crossing it. In deepwinter the ice was thick and solid and there was no danger of her falling through.
As she climbed painstakingly up the far bank, Shawn came upon the flower.
It was a very small thing, its thick black stem emerging from between two rocks low on the river bank. She might never have seen it in the night, but her pole dislodged one of the ice-covered stones as she struggled up the slope, and the noise made her glance down to where it grew.
It startled her so that she took both poles in one hand, and with the other fumbled in the deepest recesses of her clothing, so that she might risk a flame. The match gave a short, intense light. But it was enough; Shawn saw.
A flower, tiny, so tiny, with four blue petals, each the same pale blue shade that Lane’s lips had been just before he died. A flower, here, alive, growing in the eighth year of deepwinter, when all the world was dead."

Which, as @WhitewolfStark points out, fits really well with the image of the blue rose crowning in a chink of ice. 

But, then, as @WhitewolfStark again points out, the story's use of the rose is much less "ideal": 
I am not saying that ASOIAF and Bitterblooms exist in the same universe or anything else as reductive or simplistic as that. Instead I'm drawing parallels from an author's work to attempt to grasp what a symbol means to him in his mind. Blue roses from a Bitterblooms perspective it would seem are associated with something unnatural, a liar who tries to live a false life away from the harsh realities of life, and ultimately while it's a lovely thing, it is still built of lies and incompatible with "life as we know it."

There's a lot more to the story and to @WhitewolfStark's analysis in the links above. But, it seems there's an argument to be made that not only the novels themselves set up the Bael figure as deceit and working against an enemy. But the roses themselves are a deception. Which fits with the Bael Tale, and Bael-ish and Mance very well. 

Read for yourselves if you are interested--thoughts?

[bemused]

Nipping in and out again with this thought that came to me out of nowhere - while walking my dog..  (Fixation is my middle name)

 Supposing that Aerys was behind the abduction (and I do, more and more), it may not have had anything to do with the KotLT. Another very noticeable thing that was going on at Harrenhall was Ned's infatuation with Ashara , and Brandon (Rickard's heir) bringing them together. There was already an announced Stark - Tully alliance.Whether Lyanna and Robert 's betrothal was known yet,or not, it might reasonably be expected, due to the close bond between Ned and Robert. Aerys now might have suspected that a Stark - Dayne alliance had already been negotiated ,or was in the making.(Perhaps it was, but the two principals-to-be had never met, before?)

Lyanna might have been seen as the perfect hostage to use to ruin all of Rickard's supposed plans, irregardless of any knowledge of her part at the tourney.

This doesn't resolve the question of Ashara's reported stillbirth and supposed suicide.. but I don't think we've been given enough to avoid dangling ends in any scenario, yet.

I can see spite as a very large part of Aerys' motivations.

[Sly Wren]

Nipping in and out again with this thought that came to me out of nowhere - while walking my dog..  (Fixation is my middle name)

 Supposing that Aerys was behind the abduction (and I do, more and more), it may not have had anything to do with the KotLT. Another very noticeable thing that was going on at Harrenhall was Ned's infatuation with Ashara , and Brandon (Rickard's heir) bringing them together. There was already an announced Stark - Tully alliance.Whether Lyanna and Robert 's betrothal was known yet,or not, it might reasonably be expected, due to the close bond between Ned and Robert. Aerys now might have suspected that a Stark - Dayne alliance had already been negotiated ,or was in the making.(Perhaps it was, but the two principals-to-be had never met, before?)

Lyanna might have been seen as the perfect hostage to use to ruin all of Rickard's supposed plans, irregardless of any knowledge of her part at the tourney.

Absolutely. The "Knight" incident might just have been a further irritant. The underlying resentment seems like it was fairly intense. Which, if (as others have postulated) Aerys had people whispering in his ear, would have made it even easier to convince him of the Starks as enemies.

And would explain the gap in "taking" her. The plans persist. The paranoia grows (not without reason). And "snatch!"--rather like Cat snaps and takes Tyrion. In the Riverlands. Not many leagues from Harrenhal.

@Voice's theory on warg-blocking--that the Targs saw the Starks and the Wall as dangerous--has burrowed fairly deep into my brain. And Lyanna is taken after the false spring fails and winter re-emerges. The World Book's statement that Aerys was trying to magically drive the cold away with fire (I missed that lesson in Girl Scouts)--I'm wondering if the failure of the False Spring was part of taking the Stark maid, too.

This doesn't resolve the question of Ashara's reported stillbirth and supposed suicide.. but I don't think we've been given enough to avoid dangling ends in any scenario, yet.

I can see spite as a very large part of Aerys' motivations.

1. Agree on the spite.

2. On Ashara--why Martin keeps bringing it up--there has to be a reason. No way we have the whole story yet. But it fits with the "real" ending to the Bael Tale--slightly skewed. I really think that's got to be on the table for reasons why Martin keeps bringing it up. 

3. Hope the dog behaved him/herself!

[WitteRaaf]

Working with Ygrittes tale we can assume that A...the old lord stark had no other heirs.  B...the bastard was legitimized.  And C... He must have had children of his own.  

I see the story of Bael much as the story of Cersei (Lann the clever?)

it was about usurping the seat of winter fell 

you don't like wildlings?   Well, guess what?   The Starks ARE wildlings.  

[purple-eyes]

The funny thing is why did not this daughter marry a man and have true born children with him? 

Bael apparently did not marry her or literally abandoned her.  

This should not stop her from marrying other men. 

[WitteRaaf]

And there is still the parallel (I think)

Rickon and Brandon were summarily executed and Ned's head was called for.  Who does this leave in winter fell?   Lyanna. And the child within her.  I'm a bit rusty on this but wouldn't a male child of Lyanna inherit?   It's a regime change.  The problem as I see it for Bael and whoever sired Jon, is that they didn't stick around to raise the child.  Roberts rebellion saved Ned.  And it wasn't enough for Bael to dine and dash.  Both children were raised Stark.  

[purple-eyes]

And there is still the parallel (I think)

Rickon and Brandon were summarily executed and Ned's head was called for.  Who does this leave in winter fell?   Lyanna. And the child within her.  I'm a bit rusty on this but wouldn't a male child of Lyanna inherit?   It's a regime change.  The problem as I see it for Bael and whoever sired Jon, is that they didn't stick around to raise the child.  Roberts rebellion saved Ned.  And it wasn't enough for Bael to dine and dash.  Both children were raised Stark.  

honestly I think this is a hint of rhaegar's plan. 

He would do the same thing like bael, send lyanna back to winterfell with the baby, raise him as a stark, then get this savior son ready for the long night. (Maybe also kill or exile ned and benjen then make their son as lord of winterfell, so that he can fight the others as a leader) 

[WitteRaaf]

Would rhaegar have been aware of the the others?

[Sly Wren]

Working with Ygrittes tale we can assume that A...the old lord stark had no other heirs.  B...the bastard was legitimized.  And C... He must have had children of his own.  

I see the story of Bael much as the story of Cersei (Lann the clever?)

it was about usurping the seat of winter fell 

you don't like wildlings?   Well, guess what?   The Starks ARE wildlings.  

Yup! Which is the initial point of Ygritte's tale. As well as the fact that wildlings and Starks fighting each other is idiotic and potentially disastrous.

Had not thought of the Lann the Clever angle--but I like it. 

Would rhaegar have been aware of the the others?

I waffle on this a lot. The Targs must have heard the stories. But we have Good Queen Alysanne messing with the Wall. Closing the Night Fort--with its magical talking-face gate thing. Coming north in force with dragons. Taking land from the north and giving it to the Watch. It's all disrupting the Stark hold in the north (the taken land) as well as detaching the Watch from the ancient magic of the Wall and the Watch. Why are they doing this? And why did they come west in the first place?

Which could have something to do with why Lyanna was taken. I've no idea if the intent was to replace the Starks with a hybrid heir. Or just to stick it to the Starks--like Aerys does in taking Jaime from Tywin. Or kill them off. But given their interference in the North, I'm inclined to think the Targs didn't understand the Others or what was coming or how the Starks and the Wall fit into all of that at all.

 

[purple-eyes]

Would rhaegar have been aware of the the others?

I think he knows. at least long night. he contacted with Aemon. 

 

[Sly Wren]

I think he knows. at least long night. he contacted with Aemon. 

True--but the question might not be what he knows. But what he understands. 

Do they understand why there must always be a Stark at Winterfell? How the Wall works? These seem to have fallen out of the common understanding (and we aren't getting it all yet in the books). 

And is the Targs' understanding correct? IE: their interp of "The Prince that was Promised," etc. 

The funny thing is why did not this daughter marry a man and have true born children with him? 

Bael apparently did not marry her or literally abandoned her.  

This should not stop her from marrying other men. 

Given that Brandon the Daughterless had searched high an low for her, knowing Bael stole her, only to have her returned with a baby--might have been hard to get her married. . .

But that's complete speculation. The Tale isn't helpful on that score.

[WitteRaaf]

The wildling custom of marriage seems to be what took place.... She was stolen.  Given her reaction to the death of Bael she may have adhered to it as well.  She thought of herself as already married and would accept no suitors.  I can't imagine that her father would not have tried.  

[WitteRaaf]

Bael and the stark girl hid for a year

rhaegar came late to the war

time was needed to ensure a male child.  Pregnancy, I think, would be enough for spiteful purposes.  I think the plan went beyond that and that baels year and rhaegars missing in action were indicative of being sure the child was male

[purple-eyes]

Bael and the stark girl hid for a year

rhaegar came late to the war

time was needed to ensure a male child.  Pregnancy, I think, would be enough for spiteful purposes.  I think the plan went beyond that and that baels year and rhaegars missing in action were indicative of being sure the child was male

I agree this one year is to ensure a child. But it is to ensure a healthy child (not a still born, not a lizard baby, etc. )

but why being male? you mean if they find out it is a girl, then Bael and rhaegar will stay for one more year to make another one?

Not sure about Bael, but in rhaegar's case, he is likely indeed waiting for a daughter as Visenya.